Court Rules Blood Collection by Dental Hygienist Is Unlicensed Medical Practice... Three-Month Suspension of Dentist's License Upheld

"Not Simply Exceeding the Scope of a Medical Technician's Duties"
"Constitutes Unlicensed Medical Practice"

The article is unrelated to the main content.

The court has ruled that the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s decision to suspend a dentist’s license for three months for instructing a dental hygienist to perform blood collection was lawful. The dentist argued that the act merely exceeded the scope of work permitted for dental hygienists and that a 15-day suspension would be appropriate. However, the court determined that this constituted a clear case of unlicensed medical practice, warranting a three-month suspension.

According to the legal community on February 2, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Division 5 for Administrative Cases (Presiding Judge Lee Jeongwon) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by dentist A against the Minister of Health and Welfare, seeking to overturn the suspension of his dental license.

Dr. A, while working at a dental clinic in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, was indicted for instructing a dental hygienist-who is not a licensed medical professional-to perform blood collection for autologous blood therapy during implant procedures. This act was carried out on approximately 570 patients, and Dr. A was fined 10 million won for violating the Medical Service Act.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Health and Welfare imposed a three-month suspension of Dr. A’s dental license, citing that he had enabled a non-medical professional to perform a medical procedure, in violation of the Medical Service Act. Dr. A argued that he simply misunderstood the scope of work permitted for dental hygienists and claimed that the violation should only warrant a 15-day suspension, leading him to file a lawsuit.

However, the court did not accept this argument. The court found that blood collection is a medical procedure requiring professional medical knowledge, and that even if a medical technician performs it outside the scope of their license-even under a doctor’s instruction-it still constitutes unlicensed medical practice. The court also pointed out that, if the plaintiff’s argument were accepted, the penalties for instructing a medical technician to perform blood collection would be much lighter than those for instructing a layperson, which would result in an unreasonable disparity in disciplinary measures.

The court stated, “It is unreasonable to interpret Article 66, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Medical Service Act as including cases where a medical technician is instructed to perform a medical procedure that must be performed directly by a medical professional.”

The court further emphasized, “‘Causing a medical technician to exceed the scope of their work’ refers to cases such as having a medical technician prepare medical records that must be completed directly by a medical professional. In other words, it means instructing a medical technician to perform tasks outside their scope of work that must be performed directly by a medical professional, aside from medical procedures.”